- Here is an efficient way of dealing with life - 1 Update
- Read again, i correct about mathematics and about abstraction.. - 1 Update
- More about mathematics and about abstraction.. - 1 Update
- More philosophy about is my definition of the meaning of a system is correct? - 1 Update
- More philosophy about Logic and consistency.. - 1 Update
- More of my philosophy of what is mathematics and more.. - 1 Update
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Feb 03 07:50PM -0800 Hello.. I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. Here is an efficient way of dealing with life: You have to efficiently know how to efficiently "abstract" complexity, and you have to efficiently "reuse" the abstracted complexity, and you have to invent algorithms and scalable algorithms and methods and knowledge that give you the necessary quality and efficiency so that to efficiently deal with complexity. And all this needs good smartness in action. About mathematics and about abstraction.. I think my specialization is also that i have invented many software algorithms and software scalable algorithms and i am still inventing other software scalable algorithms and algorithms, those scalable algorithms and algorithms that i have invented are like inventing mathematical theorems that you prove and present in a higher level abstraction, but not only that but those algorithms and scalable algorithms of mine are presented in a form of higher level software abstraction that abstract the complexity of my scalable algorithms and algorithms, it is the most important part that interests me, for example notice how i am constructing higher level abstraction in my following tutorial as methodology that, first, permits to model the synchronization objects of parallel programs with logic primitives with If-Then-OR-AND so that to make it easy to translate to Petri nets so that to detect deadlocks in parallel programs, please take a look at it in my following web link because this tutorial of mine is the way of learning by higher level abstraction: How to analyse parallel applications with Petri Nets https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/how-to-analyse-parallel-applications-with-petri-nets So notice that my methodology is a generalization that solves communication deadlocks and resource deadlocks in parallel programs. 1- Communication deadlocks that result from incorrect use of event objects or condition variables (i.e. wait-notify synchronization). 2- Resource deadlocks, a common kind of deadlock in which a set of threads blocks forever because each thread in the set is waiting to acquire a lock held by another thread in the set. This is what interests me in mathematics, i want to work efficiently in mathematics in a much higher level of abstraction, i give you an example of what i am doing in mathematics so that you understand, look at how i am implementing mathematics as a software parallel conjugate gradient system solvers that scale very well, and i am presenting them in a higher level of abstraction, this is how i am abstracting the mathematics of them, read the following about it to notice it: About SOR and Conjugate gradient mathematical methods.. I have just looked at SOR(Successive Overrelaxation Method), and i think it is much less powerful than Conjugate gradient method, read the following to notice it: COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONJUGATE GRADIENT AND SOR METHODS FOR COMPUTATIONAL THERMAL HYDRAULICS https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/19/055/19055644.pdf?r=1&r=1 This is why i have implemented in both C++ and Delphi my Parallel Conjugate Gradient Linear System Solver Library that scales very well, read my following thoughts about it to understand more: About the convergence properties of the conjugate gradient method The conjugate gradient method can theoretically be viewed as a direct method, as it produces the exact solution after a finite number of iterations, which is not larger than the size of the matrix, in the absence of round-off error. However, the conjugate gradient method is unstable with respect to even small perturbations, e.g., most directions are not in practice conjugate, and the exact solution is never obtained. Fortunately, the conjugate gradient method can be used as an iterative method as it provides monotonically improving approximations to the exact solution, which may reach the required tolerance after a relatively small (compared to the problem size) number of iterations. The improvement is typically linear and its speed is determined by the condition number ?(A) of the system matrix A: the larger is ?(A), the slower the improvement. Read more here: http://pages.stat.wisc.edu/~wahba/stat860public/pdf1/cj.pdf So i think my Conjugate Gradient Linear System Solver Library that scales very well is still very useful, read about it in my writing below: Read the following interesting news: The finite element method finds its place in games Read more here: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fhpc.developpez.com%2Factu%2F288260%2FLa-methode-des-elements-finis-trouve-sa-place-dans-les-jeux-AMD-propose-la-bibliotheque-FEMFX-pour-une-simulation-en-temps-reel-des-deformations%2F But you have to be aware that finite element method uses Conjugate Gradient Method for Solution of Finite Element Problems, read here to notice it: Conjugate Gradient Method for Solution of Large Finite Element Problems on CPU and GPU https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1f4c/f080ee622aa02623b35eda947fbc169b199d.pdf This is why i have also designed and implemented my Parallel Conjugate Gradient Linear System Solver library that scales very well, here it is: My Parallel C++ Conjugate Gradient Linear System Solver Library that scales very well version 1.76 is here.. Author: Amine Moulay Ramdane Description: This library contains a Parallel implementation of Conjugate Gradient Dense Linear System Solver library that is NUMA-aware and cache-aware that scales very well, and it contains also a Parallel implementation of Conjugate Gradient Sparse Linear System Solver library that is cache-aware that scales very well. Sparse linear system solvers are ubiquitous in high performance computing (HPC) and often are the most computational intensive parts in scientific computing codes. A few of the many applications relying on sparse linear solvers include fusion energy simulation, space weather simulation, climate modeling, and environmental modeling, and finite element method, and large-scale reservoir simulations to enhance oil recovery by the oil and gas industry. Conjugate Gradient is known to converge to the exact solution in n steps for a matrix of size n, and was historically first seen as a direct method because of this. However, after a while people figured out that it works really well if you just stop the iteration much earlier - often you will get a very good approximation after much fewer than n steps. In fact, we can analyze how fast Conjugate gradient converges. The end result is that Conjugate gradient is used as an iterative method for large linear systems today. Please download the zip file and read the readme file inside the zip to know how to use it. You can download it from: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-parallel-c-conjugate-gradient-linear-system-solver-library Language: GNU C++ and Visual C++ and C++Builder Operating Systems: Windows, Linux, Unix and Mac OS X on (x86) -- As you have noticed i have just written above about my Parallel C++ Conjugate Gradient Linear System Solver Library that scales very well, but here is my Parallel Delphi and Freepascal Conjugate Gradient Linear System Solvers Libraries that scale very well: Parallel implementation of Conjugate Gradient Dense Linear System solver library that is NUMA-aware and cache-aware that scales very well https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-parallel-implementation-of-conjugate-gradient-dense-linear-system-solver-library-that-is-numa-aware-and-cache-aware PARALLEL IMPLEMENTATION OF CONJUGATE GRADIENT SPARSE LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVER LIBRARY THAT SCALES VERY WELL https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-parallel-implementation-of-conjugate-gradient-sparse-linear-system-solver Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Feb 03 06:19PM -0800 Hello.. Read again, i correct about mathematics and about abstraction.. I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. I think my specialization is also that i have invented many software algorithms and software scalable algorithms and i am still inventing other software scalable algorithms and algorithms, those scalable algorithms and algorithms that i have invented are like inventing mathematical theorems that you prove and present in a higher level abstraction, but not only that but those algorithms and scalable algorithms of mine are presented in a form of higher level software abstraction that abstract the complexity of my scalable algorithms and algorithms, it is the most important part that interests me, for example notice how i am constructing higher level abstraction in my following tutorial as methodology that, first, permits to model the synchronization objects of parallel programs with logic primitives with If-Then-OR-AND so that to make it easy to translate to Petri nets so that to detect deadlocks in parallel programs, please take a look at it in my following web link because this tutorial of mine is the way of learning by higher level abstraction: How to analyse parallel applications with Petri Nets https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/how-to-analyse-parallel-applications-with-petri-nets So notice that my methodology is a generalization that solves communication deadlocks and resource deadlocks in parallel programs. 1- Communication deadlocks that result from incorrect use of event objects or condition variables (i.e. wait-notify synchronization). 2- Resource deadlocks, a common kind of deadlock in which a set of threads blocks forever because each thread in the set is waiting to acquire a lock held by another thread in the set. This is what interests me in mathematics, i want to work efficiently in mathematics in a much higher level of abstraction, i give you an example of what i am doing in mathematics so that you understand, look at how i am implementing mathematics as a software parallel conjugate gradient system solvers that scale very well, and i am presenting them in a higher level of abstraction, this is how i am abstracting the mathematics of them, read the following about it to notice it: About SOR and Conjugate gradient mathematical methods.. I have just looked at SOR(Successive Overrelaxation Method), and i think it is much less powerful than Conjugate gradient method, read the following to notice it: COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONJUGATE GRADIENT AND SOR METHODS FOR COMPUTATIONAL THERMAL HYDRAULICS https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/19/055/19055644.pdf?r=1&r=1 This is why i have implemented in both C++ and Delphi my Parallel Conjugate Gradient Linear System Solver Library that scales very well, read my following thoughts about it to understand more: About the convergence properties of the conjugate gradient method The conjugate gradient method can theoretically be viewed as a direct method, as it produces the exact solution after a finite number of iterations, which is not larger than the size of the matrix, in the absence of round-off error. However, the conjugate gradient method is unstable with respect to even small perturbations, e.g., most directions are not in practice conjugate, and the exact solution is never obtained. Fortunately, the conjugate gradient method can be used as an iterative method as it provides monotonically improving approximations to the exact solution, which may reach the required tolerance after a relatively small (compared to the problem size) number of iterations. The improvement is typically linear and its speed is determined by the condition number ?(A) of the system matrix A: the larger is ?(A), the slower the improvement. Read more here: http://pages.stat.wisc.edu/~wahba/stat860public/pdf1/cj.pdf So i think my Conjugate Gradient Linear System Solver Library that scales very well is still very useful, read about it in my writing below: Read the following interesting news: The finite element method finds its place in games Read more here: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fhpc.developpez.com%2Factu%2F288260%2FLa-methode-des-elements-finis-trouve-sa-place-dans-les-jeux-AMD-propose-la-bibliotheque-FEMFX-pour-une-simulation-en-temps-reel-des-deformations%2F But you have to be aware that finite element method uses Conjugate Gradient Method for Solution of Finite Element Problems, read here to notice it: Conjugate Gradient Method for Solution of Large Finite Element Problems on CPU and GPU https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1f4c/f080ee622aa02623b35eda947fbc169b199d.pdf This is why i have also designed and implemented my Parallel Conjugate Gradient Linear System Solver library that scales very well, here it is: My Parallel C++ Conjugate Gradient Linear System Solver Library that scales very well version 1.76 is here.. Author: Amine Moulay Ramdane Description: This library contains a Parallel implementation of Conjugate Gradient Dense Linear System Solver library that is NUMA-aware and cache-aware that scales very well, and it contains also a Parallel implementation of Conjugate Gradient Sparse Linear System Solver library that is cache-aware that scales very well. Sparse linear system solvers are ubiquitous in high performance computing (HPC) and often are the most computational intensive parts in scientific computing codes. A few of the many applications relying on sparse linear solvers include fusion energy simulation, space weather simulation, climate modeling, and environmental modeling, and finite element method, and large-scale reservoir simulations to enhance oil recovery by the oil and gas industry. Conjugate Gradient is known to converge to the exact solution in n steps for a matrix of size n, and was historically first seen as a direct method because of this. However, after a while people figured out that it works really well if you just stop the iteration much earlier - often you will get a very good approximation after much fewer than n steps. In fact, we can analyze how fast Conjugate gradient converges. The end result is that Conjugate gradient is used as an iterative method for large linear systems today. Please download the zip file and read the readme file inside the zip to know how to use it. You can download it from: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-parallel-c-conjugate-gradient-linear-system-solver-library Language: GNU C++ and Visual C++ and C++Builder Operating Systems: Windows, Linux, Unix and Mac OS X on (x86) -- As you have noticed i have just written above about my Parallel C++ Conjugate Gradient Linear System Solver Library that scales very well, but here is my Parallel Delphi and Freepascal Conjugate Gradient Linear System Solvers Libraries that scale very well: Parallel implementation of Conjugate Gradient Dense Linear System solver library that is NUMA-aware and cache-aware that scales very well https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-parallel-implementation-of-conjugate-gradient-dense-linear-system-solver-library-that-is-numa-aware-and-cache-aware PARALLEL IMPLEMENTATION OF CONJUGATE GRADIENT SPARSE LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVER LIBRARY THAT SCALES VERY WELL https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-parallel-implementation-of-conjugate-gradient-sparse-linear-system-solver More philosophy about is my definition of the meaning of a system is correct? I think that the meaning of a system includes the meaning of the logical system that is part of the meaning of the system, since we are talking about human consciousness. This is why i am defining it like this below. More philosophy about Logic and consistency.. As you have just noticed i said the following(read it in my thoughts below): "I think that it is because mathematical logic wants to get the meaning of is a system logically correct, so if it is not logically correct, so that can mean that it has no meaning in the reality, and i think that this meaning in a reality permits to make the system understood as a whole(read my below writing about consistency to notice it)" So i think i am smart, and i will explain since i think you are not understanding: It is like mathematical, since my definition of the meaning of a system system includes the meaning of the logical system of the meaning of the whole system , it is a continuity of the whole system of reality or theory, so if there is a logical contradiction in the system that means that this logical contradiction is an impossibility that doesn't have a meaning in the logical system, and this impossibility is a lack of meaning that make the logical system fail, so since the logical system is a continuity of the real meaning of the system or the meaning of the theoretical system, so i think we can say that the whole system in reality or theory lacks meaning and this lacking of meaning make the whole system not understood. This is why i am talking as i am talking about consistency in my thoughts below. More of my philosophy of what is mathematics and more.. I think mathematics describes reality or theory with a great precision, this is also why we can "abstract" and/or "model" and/or "simulate" reality or theory with mathematics, also i think that mathematics can be independent of reality when we are working in mathematical theory, but the mathematical theory that is independent of reality can then be applied to reality, also i think that mathematics permits to optimize and verify, and we can also know about it by for example asking a philosophical question of: What is mathematical logic? , so i think mathematical logic maps logical expressions to logical variables and to logical operators and from that it permits to logically model with those logical variables and the logical operators and it permits to solve and verify the logical model, i will give an example so that you understand: Take as an example in mathematical logic the following kind of logical proofs: (p -> q) is equivalent to ((not(q) -> not(p)) Note: the symbol -> means implies and p and q are logical variables. or (not(p) -> 0) is equivalent to p So we can ask the philosophical question of why are we using those kind of logical proofs in mathematical logic ? I think that it is because mathematical logic wants to get the meaning of is a system logically correct, so if it is not logically correct, so that can mean that it has no meaning in the reality, and i think that this meaning in a reality permits to make the system understood as a whole(read my below writing about consistency to notice it), and it is the same for a mathematical theoretical system, and i think that those kind of proofs also permit to optimize since a kind logical proof can also be more practical than another in reality or theory. So now can we ask a philosophical question of: Is software engineers really engineers? since it is related to mathematical logic, so here is my answer: I have just read the following article about: Is software engineers really engineers ?, i invite you to read it: Are we really engineers ? https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/crossover-project/are-we-really-engineers/ I think the above article is lacking, because i think that what makes the difference between software engineering and other engineering disciplines is not only that software engineering uses discrete math, but it uses Logic(Formal Logic and such) that has been called "the calculus of computer science". The argument is that logic plays a fundamental role in computer science, similar to that played by calculus in the physical sciences and traditional engineering disciplines. Indeed, logic plays an important role in areas of Computer Science as disparate as artificial intelligence (automated reasoning), architecture (logic gates), software engineering (specification and verification), programming languages (semantics, logic programming), databases (relational algebra and SQL), algorithms (complexity and expressiveness), and theory of computation (general notions of computability). More of my philosophy about logical consistency and consistency.. So i will do more philosophy in front of your eyes, and i am thinking and writing "rapidly" all my philosophy(including my philosophy in my below writing), so as you are noticing that thinking and writing as i am doing it needs "precision" and it needs smartness, so i will make you understand more what i mean by my answer below of the question: What is a consistent system?, so notice that in mathematical logic, when there is a logical contradiction, it means that the system is not logically consistent and that means that the system is not consistent, but you have to make an important difference, it is that in mathematical logic there is a more sophisticated meaning and a less sophisticated meaning, so for example look at the following theorem: If (A implies B) And If (B implies C) Then (A implies C) So as you are noticing that the whole theorem has a more sophisticated meaning than its parts, and now suppose that there is a logical contradiction in the theorem, you will notice that it will give a "bug" to the whole meaning of the theorem, so the theorem will become a low level sophistication of meaning that comes from a logical inconsistency that is a logical contradiction, so can we ask a philosophical question of: is this logical contradiction that causes an inconsistency in the system causes that the meaning of the system becomes not understandable? i will answer yes, because there is like two modes to measure consistency of a system, there is the logical mode to measure consistency of a system, and there are other modes with wich we measure consistency a system, so if we measure consistency of the system or theorem with the logical mode, we say that the contradiction is not logical, and that means that the understandable is both the understandable of the logical mode and the understandable of the other modes, so when there is a logical contradiction in the system or in the theorem, we say that in the understandable of logical mode the contradiction is not logical and that also means that there is a missing part in the logical meaning that gives a meaning that permits the system or the theorem to be of value or sophisticated meaning, and this missing meaning of the logical contradiction is the not understandable of the logical mode that is also the not understandable, since when there is contradiction the whole system or theorem fall down and fail and in logic it is like a null set, and this fall down and failing in the meaning is like the null set of meaning , and this null set of meaning is also what we call the theorem or the system is not understood as a whole, so i think my logical proof is successful and it is true for the cases of the system that follows an infinite set of rules etc. (read about them below) Read the rest of my previous thoughts to understand: More of my philosophy about what is consistency of a system.. Now i will talk about what is consistency of a system.. Notice how i have just logically proved(read below) that a system is not always consistent, but there remain a very important question in philosophy and it is: What is a consistent system? i think i am smart, and i say that a consistent system is the one that can be understood as a whole as one system with smartness, so if there is logical inconsistency in the system, so this logical inconsistency will make it as not like one system that can be understood as one system, also if the set of rules that |
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Feb 03 06:05PM -0800 Hello.. More about mathematics and about abstraction.. I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. I think my specialization is also that i have invented many software algorithms and software scalable algorithms and i am still inventing other software scalable algorithms and algorithms, those scalable algorithms and algorithms that i have invented are like inventing mathematical theorems that you prove and present in a higher level abstraction, but not only that but those algorithms and scalable algorithms of mine are presented in a form of higher level software abstraction that abstract the complexity of my scalable algorithms and algorithms, it is the most important part that interests me, for example notice how i am constructing higher level abstraction in my following tutorial as methodology that, first, permits to model the synchronization objects of parallel programs with logic primitives with If-Then-OR-AND so that to make it easy to translate to Petri nets so that to detect deadlocks in parallel programs, please take a look at it because this tutorial of mine is the way of learning by higher level abstraction: How to analyse parallel applications with Petri Nets https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/how-to-analyse-parallel- applications-with-petri-nets So notice that my methodology is a generalization that solves communication deadlocks and resource deadlocks in parallel programs. 1- Communication deadlocks that result from incorrect use of event objects or condition variables (i.e. wait-notify synchronization). 2- Resource deadlocks, a common kind of deadlock in which a set of threads blocks forever because each thread in the set is waiting to acquire a lock held by another thread in the set. This is what interests me in mathematics, i want to work efficiently in mathematics in a much higher level of abstraction, i give you an example of what i am doing in mathematics so that you understand, look at how i am implementing mathematics as a software parallel conjugate gradient system solvers that scale very well, and i am presenting them in a higher level of abstraction, this is how i am abstracting the mathematics of them, read the following about it to notice it: About SOR and Conjugate gradient mathematical methods.. I have just looked at SOR(Successive Overrelaxation Method), and i think it is much less powerful than Conjugate gradient method, read the following to notice it: COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONJUGATE GRADIENT AND SOR METHODS FOR COMPUTATIONAL THERMAL HYDRAULICS https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/19/055/19055644.pdf?r=1&r=1 This is why i have implemented in both C++ and Delphi my Parallel Conjugate Gradient Linear System Solver Library that scales very well, read my following thoughts about it to understand more: About the convergence properties of the conjugate gradient method The conjugate gradient method can theoretically be viewed as a direct method, as it produces the exact solution after a finite number of iterations, which is not larger than the size of the matrix, in the absence of round-off error. However, the conjugate gradient method is unstable with respect to even small perturbations, e.g., most directions are not in practice conjugate, and the exact solution is never obtained. Fortunately, the conjugate gradient method can be used as an iterative method as it provides monotonically improving approximations to the exact solution, which may reach the required tolerance after a relatively small (compared to the problem size) number of iterations. The improvement is typically linear and its speed is determined by the condition number ?(A) of the system matrix A: the larger is ?(A), the slower the improvement. Read more here: http://pages.stat.wisc.edu/~wahba/stat860public/pdf1/cj.pdf So i think my Conjugate Gradient Linear System Solver Library that scales very well is still very useful, read about it in my writing below: Read the following interesting news: The finite element method finds its place in games Read more here: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fhpc.developpez.com%2Factu%2F288260%2FLa-methode-des-elements-finis-trouve-sa-place-dans-les-jeux-AMD-propose-la-bibliotheque-FEMFX-pour-une-simulation-en-temps-reel-des-deformations%2F But you have to be aware that finite element method uses Conjugate Gradient Method for Solution of Finite Element Problems, read here to notice it: Conjugate Gradient Method for Solution of Large Finite Element Problems on CPU and GPU https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1f4c/f080ee622aa02623b35eda947fbc169b199d.pdf This is why i have also designed and implemented my Parallel Conjugate Gradient Linear System Solver library that scales very well, here it is: My Parallel C++ Conjugate Gradient Linear System Solver Library that scales very well version 1.76 is here.. Author: Amine Moulay Ramdane Description: This library contains a Parallel implementation of Conjugate Gradient Dense Linear System Solver library that is NUMA-aware and cache-aware that scales very well, and it contains also a Parallel implementation of Conjugate Gradient Sparse Linear System Solver library that is cache-aware that scales very well. Sparse linear system solvers are ubiquitous in high performance computing (HPC) and often are the most computational intensive parts in scientific computing codes. A few of the many applications relying on sparse linear solvers include fusion energy simulation, space weather simulation, climate modeling, and environmental modeling, and finite element method, and large-scale reservoir simulations to enhance oil recovery by the oil and gas industry. Conjugate Gradient is known to converge to the exact solution in n steps for a matrix of size n, and was historically first seen as a direct method because of this. However, after a while people figured out that it works really well if you just stop the iteration much earlier - often you will get a very good approximation after much fewer than n steps. In fact, we can analyze how fast Conjugate gradient converges. The end result is that Conjugate gradient is used as an iterative method for large linear systems today. Please download the zip file and read the readme file inside the zip to know how to use it. You can download it from: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-parallel-c-conjugate-gradient-linear-system-solver-library Language: GNU C++ and Visual C++ and C++Builder Operating Systems: Windows, Linux, Unix and Mac OS X on (x86) -- As you have noticed i have just written above about my Parallel C++ Conjugate Gradient Linear System Solver Library that scales very well, but here is my Parallel Delphi and Freepascal Conjugate Gradient Linear System Solvers Libraries that scale very well: Parallel implementation of Conjugate Gradient Dense Linear System solver library that is NUMA-aware and cache-aware that scales very well https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-parallel-implementation-of-conjugate-gradient-dense-linear-system-solver-library-that-is-numa-aware-and-cache-aware PARALLEL IMPLEMENTATION OF CONJUGATE GRADIENT SPARSE LINEAR SYSTEM SOLVER LIBRARY THAT SCALES VERY WELL https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-parallel-implementation-of-conjugate-gradient-sparse-linear-system-solver More philosophy about is my definition of the meaning of a system is correct? I think that the meaning of a system includes the meaning of the logical system that is part of the meaning of the system, since we are talking about human consciousness. This is why i am defining it like this below. More philosophy about Logic and consistency.. As you have just noticed i said the following(read it in my thoughts below): "I think that it is because mathematical logic wants to get the meaning of is a system logically correct, so if it is not logically correct, so that can mean that it has no meaning in the reality, and i think that this meaning in a reality permits to make the system understood as a whole(read my below writing about consistency to notice it)" So i think i am smart, and i will explain since i think you are not understanding: It is like mathematical, since my definition of the meaning of a system system includes the meaning of the logical system of the meaning of the whole system , it is a continuity of the whole system of reality or theory, so if there is a logical contradiction in the system that means that this logical contradiction is an impossibility that doesn't have a meaning in the logical system, and this impossibility is a lack of meaning that make the logical system fail, so since the logical system is a continuity of the real meaning of the system or the meaning of the theoretical system, so i think we can say that the whole system in reality or theory lacks meaning and this lacking of meaning make the whole system not understood. This is why i am talking as i am talking about consistency in my thoughts below. More of my philosophy of what is mathematics and more.. I think mathematics describes reality or theory with a great precision, this is also why we can "abstract" and/or "model" and/or "simulate" reality or theory with mathematics, also i think that mathematics can be independent of reality when we are working in mathematical theory, but the mathematical theory that is independent of reality can then be applied to reality, also i think that mathematics permits to optimize and verify, and we can also know about it by for example asking a philosophical question of: What is mathematical logic? , so i think mathematical logic maps logical expressions to logical variables and to logical operators and from that it permits to logically model with those logical variables and the logical operators and it permits to solve and verify the logical model, i will give an example so that you understand: Take as an example in mathematical logic the following kind of logical proofs: (p -> q) is equivalent to ((not(q) -> not(p)) Note: the symbol -> means implies and p and q are logical variables. or (not(p) -> 0) is equivalent to p So we can ask the philosophical question of why are we using those kind of logical proofs in mathematical logic ? I think that it is because mathematical logic wants to get the meaning of is a system logically correct, so if it is not logically correct, so that can mean that it has no meaning in the reality, and i think that this meaning in a reality permits to make the system understood as a whole(read my below writing about consistency to notice it), and it is the same for a mathematical theoretical system, and i think that those kind of proofs also permit to optimize since a kind logical proof can also be more practical than another in reality or theory. So now can we ask a philosophical question of: Is software engineers really engineers? since it is related to mathematical logic, so here is my answer: I have just read the following article about: Is software engineers really engineers ?, i invite you to read it: Are we really engineers ? https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/crossover-project/are-we-really-engineers/ I think the above article is lacking, because i think that what makes the difference between software engineering and other engineering disciplines is not only that software engineering uses discrete math, but it uses Logic(Formal Logic and such) that has been called "the calculus of computer science". The argument is that logic plays a fundamental role in computer science, similar to that played by calculus in the physical sciences and traditional engineering disciplines. Indeed, logic plays an important role in areas of Computer Science as disparate as artificial intelligence (automated reasoning), architecture (logic gates), software engineering (specification and verification), programming languages (semantics, logic programming), databases (relational algebra and SQL), algorithms (complexity and expressiveness), and theory of computation (general notions of computability). More of my philosophy about logical consistency and consistency.. So i will do more philosophy in front of your eyes, and i am thinking and writing "rapidly" all my philosophy(including my philosophy in my below writing), so as you are noticing that thinking and writing as i am doing it needs "precision" and it needs smartness, so i will make you understand more what i mean by my answer below of the question: What is a consistent system?, so notice that in mathematical logic, when there is a logical contradiction, it means that the system is not logically consistent and that means that the system is not consistent, but you have to make an important difference, it is that in mathematical logic there is a more sophisticated meaning and a less sophisticated meaning, so for example look at the following theorem: If (A implies B) And If (B implies C) Then (A implies C) So as you are noticing that the whole theorem has a more sophisticated meaning than its parts, and now suppose that there is a logical contradiction in the theorem, you will notice that it will give a "bug" to the whole meaning of the theorem, so the theorem will become a low level sophistication of meaning that comes from a logical inconsistency that is a logical contradiction, so can we ask a philosophical question of: is this logical contradiction that causes an inconsistency in the system causes that the meaning of the system becomes not understandable? i will answer yes, because there is like two modes to measure consistency of a system, there is the logical mode to measure consistency of a system, and there are other modes with wich we measure consistency a system, so if we measure consistency of the system or theorem with the logical mode, we say that the contradiction is not logical, and that means that the understandable is both the understandable of the logical mode and the understandable of the other modes, so when there is a logical contradiction in the system or in the theorem, we say that in the understandable of logical mode the contradiction is not logical and that also means that there is a missing part in the logical meaning that gives a meaning that permits the system or the theorem to be of value or sophisticated meaning, and this missing meaning of the logical contradiction is the not understandable of the logical mode that is also the not understandable, since when there is contradiction the whole system or theorem fall down and fail and in logic it is like a null set, and this fall down and failing in the meaning is like the null set of meaning , and this null set of meaning is also what we call the theorem or the system is not understood as a whole, so i think my logical proof is successful and it is true for the cases of the system that follows an infinite set of rules etc. (read about them below) Read the rest of my previous thoughts to understand: More of my philosophy about what is consistency of a system.. Now i will talk about what is consistency of a system.. Notice how i have just logically proved(read below) that a system is not always consistent, but there remain a very important question in philosophy and it is: What is a consistent system? i think i am smart, and i say that a consistent system is the one that can be understood as a whole as one system with smartness, so if there is logical inconsistency in the system, so this logical inconsistency will make it as not like one system that can be understood as one system, also if the set of rules that follows the system are infinite, since a |
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Feb 03 03:10PM -0800 Hello.. More philosophy about is my definition of the meaning of a system is correct? I think that the meaning of a system includes the meaning of the logical system that is part of the meaning of the system, since we are talking about human conscicousness. This is why i am defining it like this below. Read again, i correct: More philosophy about Logic and consistency.. I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. As you have just noticed i said the following(read it in my thoughts below): "I think that it is because mathematical logic wants to get the meaning of is a system logically correct, so if it is not logically correct, so that can mean that it has no meaning in the reality, and i think that this meaning in a reality permits to make the system understood as a whole(read my below writing about consistency to notice it)" So i think i am smart, and i will explain since i think you are not understanding: It is like mathematical, since my definition of the meaning of a system system includes the meaning of the logical system of the meaning of the whole system , it is a continuity of the whole system of reality or theory, so if there is a logical contradiction in the system that means that this logical contradiction is an impossibility that doesn't have a meaning in the logical system, and this impossibility is a lack of meaning that make the logical system fail, so since the logical system is a continuity of the real meaning of the system or the meaning of the theoretical system, so i think we can say that the whole system in reality or theory lacks meaning and this lacking of meaning make the whole system not understood. This is why i am talking as i am talking about consistency in my thoughts below. More of my philosophy of what is mathematics and more.. I think mathematics describes reality or theory with a great precision, this is also why we can "abstract" and/or "model" and/or "simulate" reality or theory with mathematics, also i think that mathematics can be independent of reality when we are working in mathematical theory, but the mathematical theory that is independent of reality can then be applied to reality, also i think that mathematics permits to optimize and verify, and we can also know about it by for example asking a philosophical question of: What is mathematical logic? , so i think mathematical logic maps logical expressions to logical variables and to logical operators and from that it permits to logically model with those logical variables and the logical operators and it permits to solve and verify the logical model, i will give an example so that you understand: Take as an example in mathematical logic the following kind of logical proofs: (p -> q) is equivalent to ((not(q) -> not(p)) Note: the symbol -> means implies and p and q are logical variables. or (not(p) -> 0) is equivalent to p So we can ask the philosophical question of why are we using those kind of logical proofs in mathematical logic ? I think that it is because mathematical logic wants to get the meaning of is a system logically correct, so if it is not logically correct, so that can mean that it has no meaning in the reality, and i think that this meaning in a reality permits to make the system understood as a whole(read my below writing about consistency to notice it), and it is the same for a mathematical theoretical system, and i think that those kind of proofs also permit to optimize since a kind logical proof can also be more practical than another in reality or theory. So now can we ask a philosophical question of: Is software engineers really engineers? since it is related to mathematical logic, so here is my answer: I have just read the following article about: Is software engineers really engineers ?, i invite you to read it: Are we really engineers ? https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/crossover-project/are-we-really-engineers/ I think the above article is lacking, because i think that what makes the difference between software engineering and other engineering disciplines is not only that software engineering uses discrete math, but it uses Logic(Formal Logic and such) that has been called "the calculus of computer science". The argument is that logic plays a fundamental role in computer science, similar to that played by calculus in the physical sciences and traditional engineering disciplines. Indeed, logic plays an important role in areas of Computer Science as disparate as artificial intelligence (automated reasoning), architecture (logic gates), software engineering (specification and verification), programming languages (semantics, logic programming), databases (relational algebra and SQL), algorithms (complexity and expressiveness), and theory of computation (general notions of computability). More of my philosophy about logical consistency and consistency.. So i will do more philosophy in front of your eyes, and i am thinking and writing "rapidly" all my philosophy(including my philosophy in my below writing), so as you are noticing that thinking and writing as i am doing it needs "precision" and it needs smartness, so i will make you understand more what i mean by my answer below of the question: What is a consistent system?, so notice that in mathematical logic, when there is a logical contradiction, it means that the system is not logically consistent and that means that the system is not consistent, but you have to make an important difference, it is that in mathematical logic there is a more sophisticated meaning and a less sophisticated meaning, so for example look at the following theorem: If (A implies B) And If (B implies C) Then (A implies C) So as you are noticing that the whole theorem has a more sophisticated meaning than its parts, and now suppose that there is a logical contradiction in the theorem, you will notice that it will give a "bug" to the whole meaning of the theorem, so the theorem will become a low level sophistication of meaning that comes from a logical inconsistency that is a logical contradiction, so can we ask a philosophical question of: is this logical contradiction that causes an inconsistency in the system causes that the meaning of the system becomes not understandable? i will answer yes, because there is like two modes to measure consistency of a system, there is the logical mode to measure consistency of a system, and there are other modes with wich we measure consistency a system, so if we measure consistency of the system or theorem with the logical mode, we say that the contradiction is not logical, and that means that the understandable is both the understandable of the logical mode and the understandable of the other modes, so when there is a logical contradiction in the system or in the theorem, we say that in the understandable of logical mode the contradiction is not logical and that also means that there is a missing part in the logical meaning that gives a meaning that permits the system or the theorem to be of value or sophisticated meaning, and this missing meaning of the logical contradiction is the not understandable of the logical mode that is also the not understandable, since when there is contradiction the whole system or theorem fall down and fail and in logic it is like a null set, and this fall down and failing in the meaning is like the null set of meaning , and this null set of meaning is also what we call the theorem or the system is not understood as a whole, so i think my logical proof is successful and it is true for the cases of the system that follows an infinite set of rules etc. (read about them below) Read the rest of my previous thoughts to understand: More of my philosophy about what is consistency of a system.. Now i will talk about what is consistency of a system.. Notice how i have just logically proved(read below) that a system is not always consistent, but there remain a very important question in philosophy and it is: What is a consistent system? i think i am smart, and i say that a consistent system is the one that can be understood as a whole as one system with smartness, so if there is logical inconsistency in the system, so this logical inconsistency will make it as not like one system that can be understood as one system, also if the set of rules that follows the system are infinite, since a set can be finite or infinite, so the system can not be understood as one system, so it is inconsistent, and if it is a chaotic system, so the chaotic system can follow finite rules and it can be understood as a whole, so it becomes consistent, or it can follows infinite rules, so it becomes inconsistent. More of my philosophy about a system and consistency.. So i will ask the following philosophical question: Is in philosophy a system always consistent ? Here is my answer: So read the following definition in the dictionary of "system": https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/system So as you notice that the dictionary says the following: "A system is a way of working, organizing, or doing something which follows a fixed plan or set of rules." And look at the definition of plan in the dictionary: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/plan So as you notice that it says: "A plan is a method of achieving something that you have worked out in detail beforehand" So we can logically infer that a system follows a fixed plan or set of rules, and we know that "consistent" means acting or done in the same way over time, and the "same way" over time is "finite" over time, so then since a system follows a set of rules, the "set" of those rules can be infinite, since a set can be finite or infinite, so then we can logically say that since a system also follows an infinite set of rules , so that means that a system has as nature or essence that it is both an unchanging nature that follows a fixed plan and an inconsistency, so i think we can logically infer that a system is not always consistent. I think that fluid intelligence discerns patterns(and discern is to recognize, it also means to know), and a pattern is a system that is static or dynamic that can be considered coherent(that means consistent or logical), because it follows a fixed plan or set of rules or a way, and i think that when i say in the definition that the pattern follows a fixed plan or set of rules or a way, it can also abstract all the functionality of fluid intelligence, read my following thoughts to understand: More philosophy about fluid intelligence and a pattern.. Here is the definition in the dictionary of pattern: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pattern And here is the definition in the dictionary of system: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/system So as you are noticing that the definition of "pattern" is: "A particular way in which something is done, is organized, or happens" And the definition of "system" is: "A system is a way of working, organizing, or doing something which follows a fixed plan or set of rules." So as you are noticing that a pattern also means a system, and the pattern or system can be considered coherent(that means consistent or logical), because it follows a fixed plan or set of rules or a way. So in a Mensa IQ test you have to discern the coherent pattern or complex pattern with your fluid intelligence. More philosophy about what is a pattern and more.. I think i am a philosopher, so i will ask a question of what is a pattern? I think a pattern is system that can be dynamic or static, i give you an example so that you understand: If i say the following sentence: My name is Amine Moulay Ramdane and i am a genius. There is high level patterns and lower level patterns in this sentence, i think the word "My" and the other words are lower level patterns or systems in the sentence and the composition of the sentence from words is a higher level pattern or system that is composed from lower level patterns of words. This is how works fluid intelligence of smartness, it finds higher level patterns and lower level patterns of our universe constituted with low level patterns called matter or energy. More of my philosophy about happiness.. When you read my below writing you will notice that i am saying that happiness comes from pleasures of life and from like the mechanism of the alternance of the day and night and i am explaining the mechanism so that you understand it. But the question is: Am i really smart to say the above? since as you are noticing that i am saying that "happiness comes from", but i am not saying that "happiness also comes from", so as you are noticing it is like i am saying "happiness only comes from", so is it illogical to say so ? No, it is logical to say so , since i am also saying below in my political philosophy(when i am speaking about the Japanese lifestyle) that order can be considered a pleasure of life, so then it is logical to say in my above writing that "happiness only comes from", since notice in the above context that order is a "constraint" , so then we have to know how to define order, so then you can read my below philosophy and notice that order is constrained by morality that i am showing that it must be progressive, read my following thoughts of my philosophy so that you notice: More of my philosophy about what is the Nature of Personal Identity.. I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. I invite you to look at the following short video: Raymond Kurzweil - What is the Nature of Personal Identity? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb3zsuHwqvY&t=193s I think that Raymond Kurzweil in the above video is not answering correctly. So i think that it is a philosophical question of: What is the Nature of Personal Identity? So i think i am smart and i will answer it like the following: I think that you have to understand my philosophy about morality, here it is: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.culture.morocco/7UmkfURwoU4 So as you are noticing that in my philosophy about morality i am proving that morality is perfection at best , and the "at best" is here in the definition of morality to make it a correct abstraction, and note that the English dictionary defines "perfection" as: "the act or process of perfecting" Read here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfection So as you are noticing since morality is also perfection, so our identity or personal identity is also this perfection, since we can say that we are a civilization and this civilization is a dynamic process and it is the act or process of perfecting at best, so then you have to know how to be correct science and correct technology that brings perfection. And to be able to know more about my philosophy about existence, I have just created a webpage on my website here about my philosophy about human existence, you can read it carefully here: https://scalable68.godaddysites.com/f/my-philosophy-about-human-existence About philosophy and Metaphilosophy.. I think i am smart, and i am doing philosophy, but you have to understand my way of doing philosophy, my way of doing philosophy is not what we call doing Brainstorming first and so forth, but i am most of the time like first finding the smart architectural ideas with my fluid intelligence, and it needs more smartness, so from those smart architectural ideas i am constructing more and more my philosophy, and you have to understand my philosophical smartness, since a very important thing for me, is also finding the |
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Feb 03 02:52PM -0800 Hello.. More philosophy about Logic and consistency.. I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. As you have just noticed i said the following(read it in my thoughts below): "I think that it is because mathematical logic wants to get the meaning of is a system logically correct, so if it is not logically correct, so that can mean that it has no meaning in the reality, and i think that this meaning in a reality permits to make the system understood as a whole(read my below writing about consistency to notice it)" So i think i am smart, and i will explain since i think you are not understanding: It is like mathematical, since my definition of a system includes the logical system of the whole system that is a continuity of the whole system in reality or theory, so if there is a logical contradiction in the system that means that this logical contradiction is an impossibility that doesn't have a meaning in the logical system, and this impossibility is a lack of meaning that make the logical system fail, so since the logical system is a continuity of the real system or theoretical system, so i think we can say that the whole system in reality or theory lacks meaning and this lacking of meaning make the whole system not understood. This is why i am talking as i am talking about consistency in my thoughts below. More of my philosophy of what is mathematics and more.. I think mathematics describes reality or theory with a great precision, this is also why we can "abstract" and/or "model" and/or "simulate" reality or theory with mathematics, also i think that mathematics can be independent of reality when we are working in mathematical theory, but the mathematical theory that is independent of reality can then be applied to reality, also i think that mathematics permits to optimize and verify, and we can also know about it by for example asking a philosophical question of: What is mathematical logic? , so i think mathematical logic maps logical expressions to logical variables and to logical operators and from that it permits to logically model with those logical variables and the logical operators and it permits to solve and verify the logical model, i will give an example so that you understand: Take as an example in mathematical logic the following kind of logical proofs: (p -> q) is equivalent to ((not(q) -> not(p)) Note: the symbol -> means implies and p and q are logical variables. or (not(p) -> 0) is equivalent to p So we can ask the philosophical question of why are we using those kind of logical proofs in mathematical logic ? I think that it is because mathematical logic wants to get the meaning of is a system logically correct, so if it is not logically correct, so that can mean that it has no meaning in the reality, and i think that this meaning in a reality permits to make the system understood as a whole(read my below writing about consistency to notice it), and it is the same for a mathematical theoretical system, and i think that those kind of proofs also permit to optimize since a kind logical proof can also be more practical than another in reality or theory. So now can we ask a philosophical question of: Is software engineers really engineers? since it is related to mathematical logic, so here is my answer: I have just read the following article about: Is software engineers really engineers ?, i invite you to read it: Are we really engineers ? https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/crossover-project/are-we-really-engineers/ I think the above article is lacking, because i think that what makes the difference between software engineering and other engineering disciplines is not only that software engineering uses discrete math, but it uses Logic(Formal Logic and such) that has been called "the calculus of computer science". The argument is that logic plays a fundamental role in computer science, similar to that played by calculus in the physical sciences and traditional engineering disciplines. Indeed, logic plays an important role in areas of Computer Science as disparate as artificial intelligence (automated reasoning), architecture (logic gates), software engineering (specification and verification), programming languages (semantics, logic programming), databases (relational algebra and SQL), algorithms (complexity and expressiveness), and theory of computation (general notions of computability). More of my philosophy about logical consistency and consistency.. So i will do more philosophy in front of your eyes, and i am thinking and writing "rapidly" all my philosophy(including my philosophy in my below writing), so as you are noticing that thinking and writing as i am doing it needs "precision" and it needs smartness, so i will make you understand more what i mean by my answer below of the question: What is a consistent system?, so notice that in mathematical logic, when there is a logical contradiction, it means that the system is not logically consistent and that means that the system is not consistent, but you have to make an important difference, it is that in mathematical logic there is a more sophisticated meaning and a less sophisticated meaning, so for example look at the following theorem: If (A implies B) And If (B implies C) Then (A implies C) So as you are noticing that the whole theorem has a more sophisticated meaning than its parts, and now suppose that there is a logical contradiction in the theorem, you will notice that it will give a "bug" to the whole meaning of the theorem, so the theorem will become a low level sophistication of meaning that comes from a logical inconsistency that is a logical contradiction, so can we ask a philosophical question of: is this logical contradiction that causes an inconsistency in the system causes that the meaning of the system becomes not understandable? i will answer yes, because there is like two modes to measure consistency of a system, there is the logical mode to measure consistency of a system, and there are other modes with wich we measure consistency a system, so if we measure consistency of the system or theorem with the logical mode, we say that the contradiction is not logical, and that means that the understandable is both the understandable of the logical mode and the understandable of the other modes, so when there is a logical contradiction in the system or in the theorem, we say that in the understandable of logical mode the contradiction is not logical and that also means that there is a missing part in the logical meaning that gives a meaning that permits the system or the theorem to be of value or sophisticated meaning, and this missing meaning of the logical contradiction is the not understandable of the logical mode that is also the not understandable, since when there is contradiction the whole system or theorem fall down and fail and in logic it is like a null set, and this fall down and failing in the meaning is like the null set of meaning , and this null set of meaning is also what we call the theorem or the system is not understood as a whole, so i think my logical proof is successful and it is true for the cases of the system that follows an infinite set of rules etc. (read about them below) Read the rest of my previous thoughts to understand: More of my philosophy about what is consistency of a system.. Now i will talk about what is consistency of a system.. Notice how i have just logically proved(read below) that a system is not always consistent, but there remain a very important question in philosophy and it is: What is a consistent system? i think i am smart, and i say that a consistent system is the one that can be understood as a whole as one system with smartness, so if there is logical inconsistency in the system, so this logical inconsistency will make it as not like one system that can be understood as one system, also if the set of rules that follows the system are infinite, since a set can be finite or infinite, so the system can not be understood as one system, so it is inconsistent, and if it is a chaotic system, so the chaotic system can follow finite rules and it can be understood as a whole, so it becomes consistent, or it can follows infinite rules, so it becomes inconsistent. More of my philosophy about a system and consistency.. So i will ask the following philosophical question: Is in philosophy a system always consistent ? Here is my answer: So read the following definition in the dictionary of "system": https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/system So as you notice that the dictionary says the following: "A system is a way of working, organizing, or doing something which follows a fixed plan or set of rules." And look at the definition of plan in the dictionary: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/plan So as you notice that it says: "A plan is a method of achieving something that you have worked out in detail beforehand" So we can logically infer that a system follows a fixed plan or set of rules, and we know that "consistent" means acting or done in the same way over time, and the "same way" over time is "finite" over time, so then since a system follows a set of rules, the "set" of those rules can be infinite, since a set can be finite or infinite, so then we can logically say that since a system also follows an infinite set of rules , so that means that a system has as nature or essence that it is both an unchanging nature that follows a fixed plan and an inconsistency, so i think we can logically infer that a system is not always consistent. I think that fluid intelligence discerns patterns(and discern is to recognize, it also means to know), and a pattern is a system that is static or dynamic that can be considered coherent(that means consistent or logical), because it follows a fixed plan or set of rules or a way, and i think that when i say in the definition that the pattern follows a fixed plan or set of rules or a way, it can also abstract all the functionality of fluid intelligence, read my following thoughts to understand: More philosophy about fluid intelligence and a pattern.. Here is the definition in the dictionary of pattern: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pattern And here is the definition in the dictionary of system: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/system So as you are noticing that the definition of "pattern" is: "A particular way in which something is done, is organized, or happens" And the definition of "system" is: "A system is a way of working, organizing, or doing something which follows a fixed plan or set of rules." So as you are noticing that a pattern also means a system, and the pattern or system can be considered coherent(that means consistent or logical), because it follows a fixed plan or set of rules or a way. So in a Mensa IQ test you have to discern the coherent pattern or complex pattern with your fluid intelligence. More philosophy about what is a pattern and more.. I think i am a philosopher, so i will ask a question of what is a pattern? I think a pattern is system that can be dynamic or static, i give you an example so that you understand: If i say the following sentence: My name is Amine Moulay Ramdane and i am a genius. There is high level patterns and lower level patterns in this sentence, i think the word "My" and the other words are lower level patterns or systems in the sentence and the composition of the sentence from words is a higher level pattern or system that is composed from lower level patterns of words. This is how works fluid intelligence of smartness, it finds higher level patterns and lower level patterns of our universe constituted with low level patterns called matter or energy. More of my philosophy about happiness.. When you read my below writing you will notice that i am saying that happiness comes from pleasures of life and from like the mechanism of the alternance of the day and night and i am explaining the mechanism so that you understand it. But the question is: Am i really smart to say the above? since as you are noticing that i am saying that "happiness comes from", but i am not saying that "happiness also comes from", so as you are noticing it is like i am saying "happiness only comes from", so is it illogical to say so ? No, it is logical to say so , since i am also saying below in my political philosophy(when i am speaking about the Japanese lifestyle) that order can be considered a pleasure of life, so then it is logical to say in my above writing that "happiness only comes from", since notice in the above context that order is a "constraint" , so then we have to know how to define order, so then you can read my below philosophy and notice that order is constrained by morality that i am showing that it must be progressive, read my following thoughts of my philosophy so that you notice: More of my philosophy about what is the Nature of Personal Identity.. I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. I invite you to look at the following short video: Raymond Kurzweil - What is the Nature of Personal Identity? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb3zsuHwqvY&t=193s I think that Raymond Kurzweil in the above video is not answering correctly. So i think that it is a philosophical question of: What is the Nature of Personal Identity? So i think i am smart and i will answer it like the following: I think that you have to understand my philosophy about morality, here it is: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.culture.morocco/7UmkfURwoU4 So as you are noticing that in my philosophy about morality i am proving that morality is perfection at best , and the "at best" is here in the definition of morality to make it a correct abstraction, and note that the English dictionary defines "perfection" as: "the act or process of perfecting" Read here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfection So as you are noticing since morality is also perfection, so our identity or personal identity is also this perfection, since we can say that we are a civilization and this civilization is a dynamic process and it is the act or process of perfecting at best, so then you have to know how to be correct science and correct technology that brings perfection. And to be able to know more about my philosophy about existence, I have just created a webpage on my website here about my philosophy about human existence, you can read it carefully here: https://scalable68.godaddysites.com/f/my-philosophy-about-human-existence About philosophy and Metaphilosophy.. I think i am smart, and i am doing philosophy, but you have to understand my way of doing philosophy, my way of doing philosophy is not what we call doing Brainstorming first and so forth, but i am most of the time like first finding the smart architectural ideas with my fluid intelligence, and it needs more smartness, so from those smart architectural ideas i am constructing more and more my philosophy, and you have to understand my philosophical smartness, since a very important thing for me, is also finding the soft power engines that permit people to efficiently go forward towards more and more perfection and that permit people to be smart, for example when you are genetically a person that greatly wants to show people that he is smart even if he is not smart, this genetically wanting greatly to show people that you are smart even if you are not smart is what we call an "engine" that permits to go forward towards more and more |
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Feb 03 12:15PM -0800 Hello... More of my philosophy of what is mathematics and more.. I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. I think mathematics describes reality or theory with a great precision, this is also why we can "abstract" and/or "model" and/or "simulate" reality or theory with mathematics, also i think that mathematics can be independent of reality when we are working in mathematical theory, but the mathematical theory that is independent of reality can then be applied to reality, also i think that mathematics permits to optimize and verify, and we can also know about it by for example asking a philosophical question of: What is mathematical logic? , so i think mathematical logic maps logical expressions to logical variables and to logical operators and from that it permits to logically model with those logical variables and the logical operators and it permits to solve and verify the logical model, i will give an example so that you understand: Take as an example in mathematical logic the following kind of logical proofs: (p -> q) is equivalent to ((not(q) -> not(p)) Note: the symbol -> means implies and p and q are logical variables. or (not(p) -> 0) is equivalent to p So we can ask the philosophical question of why are we using those kind of logical proofs in mathematical logic ? I think that it is because mathematical logic wants to get the meaning of is a system logically correct, so if it is not logically correct, so that can mean that it has no meaning in the reality, and i think that this meaning in a reality permits to make the system understood as a whole(read my below writing about consistency to notice it), and it is the same for a mathematical theoretical system, and i think that those kind of proofs also permit to optimize since a kind logical proof can also be more practical than another in reality or theory. So now can we ask a philosophical question of: Is software engineers really engineers? since it is related to mathematical logic, so here is my answer: I have just read the following article about: Is software engineers really engineers ?, i invite you to read it: Are we really engineers ? https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/crossover-project/are-we-really-engineers/ I think the above article is lacking, because i think that what makes the difference between software engineering and other engineering disciplines is not only that software engineering uses discrete math, but it uses Logic(Formal Logic and such) that has been called "the calculus of computer science". The argument is that logic plays a fundamental role in computer science, similar to that played by calculus in the physical sciences and traditional engineering disciplines. Indeed, logic plays an important role in areas of Computer Science as disparate as artificial intelligence (automated reasoning), architecture (logic gates), software engineering (specification and verification), programming languages (semantics, logic programming), databases (relational algebra and SQL), algorithms (complexity and expressiveness), and theory of computation (general notions of computability). More of my philosophy about logical consistency and consistency.. So i will do more philosophy in front of your eyes, and i am thinking and writing "rapidly" all my philosophy(including my philosophy in my below writing), so as you are noticing that thinking and writing as i am doing it needs "precision" and it needs smartness, so i will make you understand more what i mean by my answer below of the question: What is a consistent system?, so notice that in mathematical logic, when there is a logical contradiction, it means that the system is not logically consistent and that means that the system is not consistent, but you have to make an important difference, it is that in mathematical logic there is a more sophisticated meaning and a less sophisticated meaning, so for example look at the following theorem: If (A implies B) And If (B implies C) Then (A implies C) So as you are noticing that the whole theorem has a more sophisticated meaning than its parts, and now suppose that there is a logical contradiction in the theorem, you will notice that it will give a "bug" to the whole meaning of the theorem, so the theorem will become a low level sophistication of meaning that comes from a logical inconsistency that is a logical contradiction, so can we ask a philosophical question of: is this logical contradiction that causes an inconsistency in the system causes that the meaning of the system becomes not understandable? i will answer yes, because there is like two modes to measure consistency of a system, there is the logical mode to measure consistency of a system, and there are other modes with wich we measure consistency a system, so if we measure consistency of the system or theorem with the logical mode, we say that the contradiction is not logical, and that means that the understandable is both the understandable of the logical mode and the understandable of the other modes, so when there is a logical contradiction in the system or in the theorem, we say that in the understandable of logical mode the contradiction is not logical and that also means that there is a missing part in the logical meaning that gives a meaning that permits the system or the theorem to be of value or sophisticated meaning, and this missing meaning of the logical contradiction is the not understandable of the logical mode that is also the not understandable, since when there is contradiction the whole system or theorem fall down and fail and in logic it is like a null set, and this fall down and failing in the meaning is like the null set of meaning , and this null set of meaning is also what we call the theorem or the system is not understood as a whole, so i think my logical proof is successful and it is true for the cases of the system that follows an infinite set of rules etc. (read about them below) Read the rest of my previous thoughts to understand: More of my philosophy about what is consistency of a system.. Now i will talk about what is consistency of a system.. Notice how i have just logically proved(read below) that a system is not always consistent, but there remain a very important question in philosophy and it is: What is a consistent system? i think i am smart, and i say that a consistent system is the one that can be understood as a whole as one system with smartness, so if there is logical inconsistency in the system, so this logical inconsistency will make it as not like one system that can be understood as one system, also if the set of rules that follows the system are infinite, since a set can be finite or infinite, so the system can not be understood as one system, so it is inconsistent, and if it is a chaotic system, so the chaotic system can follow finite rules and it can be understood as a whole, so it becomes consistent, or it can follows infinite rules, so it becomes inconsistent. More of my philosophy about a system and consistency.. So i will ask the following philosophical question: Is in philosophy a system always consistent ? Here is my answer: So read the following definition in the dictionary of "system": https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/system So as you notice that the dictionary says the following: "A system is a way of working, organizing, or doing something which follows a fixed plan or set of rules." And look at the definition of plan in the dictionary: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/plan So as you notice that it says: "A plan is a method of achieving something that you have worked out in detail beforehand" So we can logically infer that a system follows a fixed plan or set of rules, and we know that "consistent" means acting or done in the same way over time, and the "same way" over time is "finite" over time, so then since a system follows a set of rules, the "set" of those rules can be infinite, since a set can be finite or infinite, so then we can logically say that since a system also follows an infinite set of rules , so that means that a system has as nature or essence that it is both an unchanging nature that follows a fixed plan and an inconsistency, so i think we can logically infer that a system is not always consistent. I think that fluid intelligence discerns patterns(and discern is to recognize, it also means to know), and a pattern is a system that is static or dynamic that can be considered coherent(that means consistent or logical), because it follows a fixed plan or set of rules or a way, and i think that when i say in the definition that the pattern follows a fixed plan or set of rules or a way, it can also abstract all the functionality of fluid intelligence, read my following thoughts to understand: More philosophy about fluid intelligence and a pattern.. Here is the definition in the dictionary of pattern: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pattern And here is the definition in the dictionary of system: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/system So as you are noticing that the definition of "pattern" is: "A particular way in which something is done, is organized, or happens" And the definition of "system" is: "A system is a way of working, organizing, or doing something which follows a fixed plan or set of rules." So as you are noticing that a pattern also means a system, and the pattern or system can be considered coherent(that means consistent or logical), because it follows a fixed plan or set of rules or a way. So in a Mensa IQ test you have to discern the coherent pattern or complex pattern with your fluid intelligence. More philosophy about what is a pattern and more.. I think i am a philosopher, so i will ask a question of what is a pattern? I think a pattern is system that can be dynamic or static, i give you an example so that you understand: If i say the following sentence: My name is Amine Moulay Ramdane and i am a genius. There is high level patterns and lower level patterns in this sentence, i think the word "My" and the other words are lower level patterns or systems in the sentence and the composition of the sentence from words is a higher level pattern or system that is composed from lower level patterns of words. This is how works fluid intelligence of smartness, it finds higher level patterns and lower level patterns of our universe constituted with low level patterns called matter or energy. More of my philosophy about happiness.. When you read my below writing you will notice that i am saying that happiness comes from pleasures of life and from like the mechanism of the alternance of the day and night and i am explaining the mechanism so that you understand it. But the question is: Am i really smart to say the above? since as you are noticing that i am saying that "happiness comes from", but i am not saying that "happiness also comes from", so as you are noticing it is like i am saying "happiness only comes from", so is it illogical to say so ? No, it is logical to say so , since i am also saying below in my political philosophy(when i am speaking about the Japanese lifestyle) that order can be considered a pleasure of life, so then it is logical to say in my above writing that "happiness only comes from", since notice in the above context that order is a "constraint" , so then we have to know how to define order, so then you can read my below philosophy and notice that order is constrained by morality that i am showing that it must be progressive, read my following thoughts of my philosophy so that you notice: More of my philosophy about what is the Nature of Personal Identity.. I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. I invite you to look at the following short video: Raymond Kurzweil - What is the Nature of Personal Identity? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb3zsuHwqvY&t=193s I think that Raymond Kurzweil in the above video is not answering correctly. So i think that it is a philosophical question of: What is the Nature of Personal Identity? So i think i am smart and i will answer it like the following: I think that you have to understand my philosophy about morality, here it is: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.culture.morocco/7UmkfURwoU4 So as you are noticing that in my philosophy about morality i am proving that morality is perfection at best , and the "at best" is here in the definition of morality to make it a correct abstraction, and note that the English dictionary defines "perfection" as: "the act or process of perfecting" Read here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfection So as you are noticing since morality is also perfection, so our identity or personal identity is also this perfection, since we can say that we are a civilization and this civilization is a dynamic process and it is the act or process of perfecting at best, so then you have to know how to be correct science and correct technology that brings perfection. And to be able to know more about my philosophy about existence, I have just created a webpage on my website here about my philosophy about human existence, you can read it carefully here: https://scalable68.godaddysites.com/f/my-philosophy-about-human-existence About philosophy and Metaphilosophy.. I think i am smart, and i am doing philosophy, but you have to understand my way of doing philosophy, my way of doing philosophy is not what we call doing Brainstorming first and so forth, but i am most of the time like first finding the smart architectural ideas with my fluid intelligence, and it needs more smartness, so from those smart architectural ideas i am constructing more and more my philosophy, and you have to understand my philosophical smartness, since a very important thing for me, is also finding the soft power engines that permit people to efficiently go forward towards more and more perfection and that permit people to be smart, for example when you are genetically a person that greatly wants to show people that he is smart even if he is not smart, this genetically wanting greatly to show people that you are smart even if you are not smart is what we call an "engine" that permits to go forward towards more and more perfection, so in philosophy one of the most important thing is to find the mechanisms that play the role of "engines" that permit people to go efficiently forward towards more and more perfection and that permit people to become efficiently smart, this is one of the most important thing in philosophy, but not only that, but the goal of philosophy is happiness, but notice that it is the "goal", so the question in philosophy is how to efficiently attain the goal that is happiness, so an important question in philosophy is how to know how to be happiness, because if you say that happiness is only being pleasures of life, that's not the correct philosophy, so this is why i have to be inventive, and this is why you have seen me explaining what is happiness in my philosophy below, read it carefully and you will notice that i am answering this question by giving an answer in a form of a mechanism that plays the role of an "engine" that permits people to go efficiently forward toward more and more perfection and that permit people to be a smart, so as you are noticing that i have to be smart when i am inventing my thoughts of my philosophy. Here is my philosophy about happiness and notice how i am like creating the engine that permits to go efficiently forward towards more |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.programming.threads+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment